A Meeting With The Governor: Report To Readers

Gwen Morgan
English
MSU-Bozeman

As one who sometimes despairs that faculty voices are ever heard by the powers that be, it came as a pleasant surprise that my commentary in the last Montana Professor landed me in Helena for an interview with Governor Racicot. In the company of Ken Lockridge from the University of Montana, I met with Mr. Racicot on August 23 to follow up on my discussion of class sizes, professorial workloads, student fees, and the seeming vilification of faculty in the state budget crisis. I would now like to share my impressions of the meeting with my colleagues.

Issue One: We're the Bad Guys

In a state with a high proportion of its population in the working class or rural laborer categories, we already have a hard battle to convince the public that we are not a pampered, underworked, overpaid, pie-in-the-sky elite who spend a mere 15 or 20 hours working for outrageously large salaries. This has been enforced, willingly or no, by earlier statements attributed to the Governor's office (most specifically to Dave Lewis) which suggested that we work fewer hours than national average and that the budget crisis could be solved by upping our workloads and raising tuition. A number of explanations and pleas, mine among them, for understanding exactly what we do, and citing national averages that we do meet and even exceed, seem to have done little good. Indeed, as Ken Lockridge pointed out to Mr. Racicot, if we compute the number of student credit hours produced by faculty salary dollar, we are the most productive faculty at a state institution in the country, as well as the worst paid. That we have managed among us to produce nationally and internationally recognized scholarship despite this is to our credit. In bringing this to the Governor's attention, we asked not only that we not destroy the quality of education we provide Montana's students by being asked to work more for the same below average wages, but that his office make a concerted effort to help us with our image problem. We should be subject to praise and support, not covert and hostile finger-pointing, by those who run Montana's government machine and take ultimate responsibility for the state of her education.

Issue Two: The Quality of Montana's Education

In my MP commentary, I noted that numerous studies at a variety of levels have already shown that our classes are already too large and that further increases in their population will exponentially decrease the effectiveness of the education our students receive. If we are expected to teach more, and do it effectively, we must teach more classes. If that is so, something else has to give.

As university professionals, we are all expected to maintain currency in our fields. That takes a lot of time, and a certain amount of money for such things as attending national meetings. Moreover, to varying degrees at the different institutions, we are expected to contribute to the body of knowledge from which we all draw, i.e., present our findings and ideas at meetings, in national publications, and in books. Publish or perish, no? Well, that takes even more time. Finally, as employees of state institutions, we are also expected to participate in the community, offering our expertise free of charge to such activities as discussion groups, library study programs, fund-raisers, public interest consultations, free clinics, etc. Most of us already work more than a 4O-hour week, especially when we take into consideration these duties are over and above our above-average teaching loads, class preparation and grading time, advising, and various administrative duties.

So, here's the rub: everything except the classroom teaching is what makes for a university, rather than a community college or high school (which is certainly not to diminish those extra-curricular duties which those institutions support). Does this state, then, want university level education, or do they want us to simply provide a lower level of educational service and forego the community service and a share in the intellectual contributions of our culture?

Issue Three: To Whom is Government Listening?

It seems a matter of course that, in general, people have a say in their jobs, in their lives, in the things for which they are responsible. Does the collective Montana faculty? I decline to guess who Mr. Racicot's information providers may be (certainly I've seen a number of conversations with the administration, and Ken assures me communications have been held with the union at those campuses which have one), but I was surprised to see that Mr. Racicot wasn't really all that familiar with who we are and what we do. Moreover, Mr. Racicot seemed to me to be just as surprised that he hadn't heard the various grievances that we put on his table, that the attitude of many faculty members was, to borrow Ken's phrase, one of "despair and frustration." So where did the communication break down? Beats me.

What's the Governor Going to Do?

Again, it beats me. That's his prerogative as an elected official. But he did offer some assurances. First, he's going to rein in the "critics," if I can call them that, of Montana's faculty in his own office. He agrees that he should offer us strong public defense and support. And I think he'll do it.

Second, he is growing ever more aware of our predicament and agrees with the assertions which Ken and I made regarding our productivity, workloads, and salary. He declined to say if and how he could fix them, but he did assure us that he adjusts his position as his perception of the higher education system changes, that he believes Montana could be "an education mecca" and that he intends to work to make it so. The "community college" solution is simply not an option. Let's face it: that's going to be a tough row to hoe, and we must admit that Mr. Racicot didn't inherit the best state economy. But again, I believe he is sincere. Let's see where the dream takes us.

Finally, can we have a say in our future? Mr. Racicot gave us an unequivocal answer on that: "Pick up the phone." If there's something we want to say, or something we think he should hear, he wants to hear it. OK, guys, let's not swamp the Capitol phone system, but I think this invitation, too, is sincere, and that we should take up the challenge he has offered. Let's try to help shape the Governor's perceptions and policies, taking a hand in our own future when we think we can. Obviously, much of the time we must work through our unions and our administrations, but if something falls through the cracks, if something is misunderstood, if something new arises which affects us deeply, let's get it through.

As I See It

Admittedly, I approached this meeting with suspicion and some trepidation, having been subject to not a few attempts to dissuade me from it, not to mention my own sense of embattlement as a faculty member. But once again, I was pleasantly surprised, by the intimacy of the Governor's knowledge of our institutions, by his candid approach and admissions that sometimes education seemed like "the path of least resistance" in his attempts to balance the budget, by his humanity. I don't know how, and I don't know quite where to go from here, but both Ken and I truly felt the meeting did some good, that we offered some input he hadn't heard before. And I certainly don't agree with all Mr. Racicot's financial policies. The cynic in me says, "Wait and see!" The optimist takes heart that perhaps our darkest hour in higher education is nearing its end. Either way, I do believe we have an open door. I do believe Mr. Racicot is willing to work with us and for us, if we can convince him it's the best way to go for Montana. Let's give it a shot...perhaps in those many empty hours of our work week!


Contents | Home